Message-ID:	<37679E2C.5A281FD3@eik.bme.hu>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:53:00 +0200
From:	"Dr. =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F3lyom=20Andr=E1s?=" <solyom AT eik DOT bme DOT hu>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en,hu
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Compilers comparisson, some opinions about the generated , assembler
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990616135402 DOT 27724D-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, salvador wrote:
>
> >   Me again with the gcc/egcs/pgcc/MSVC/Watcom comparisson.
>
> Won't the fact that the benchmarks were all run from Windows 95 affect
> the comparison (due to Windows' overhead which doesn't have to be the
> same for PM DOS program and Win32 program)?

I have the results of two actual runs, one  using Djgpp's GCC in a DOS box and
the other Borland's C++ Builder with the same CPP source. The program which
processed a 255 Mbyte text file. Djgpp finished in 10 min 31 sec, the Builder
in 17 min 3 sec. The cause of this difference must be the inefficiency of the
Windows implementation of the  FAT32 file system. The same program compiled in
Linux and run on the same machine using the same FAT32 file system mounted
under /dos/d finished in 1 min 21 sec...

I understand that this is not simply a compiler test, but it is interesting
nevertheless...

_______________________________________________________________
Question #7: How Can I Make Linux More Like Windows?

'Hmmm. Rebuild the kernel to use every memory-hogging feature you can find.
Reboot every
couple of days whether you need to or not. And every 18 months or so, send a
check for $99
to Bill Gates. That should do the trick.' (CNET - 10 questions about Linux
[4.28.1999])

- Raw text -